Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 3
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-405 (2026)

Contents of a marketing order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A marketing order shall:

1. Describe the territory of this state to be regulated by the marketing order.

2. State the type of marketing order program.

3. Establish a marketing commission, prescribe the number of commission members and specify an official name of the commission.

4. State the maximum rate of assessments in amounts sufficient to cover all expenses of the marketing order if assessments are required.

5. State whether the marketing order applies to producers or shippers, or both. If the marketing order applies to shippers only, shippers shall pay any assessments owing and shall not charge producers any assessments for the marketing order. If the marketing order applies to both producers and shippers, the shippers shall not charge producers any assessments that the shipper is required to pay pursuant to the marketing order.

6. Apply uniformly to all persons of the same category.

7. State whether the costs of the public meeting and referendum or written assent procedures shall be reimbursed by any assessments received if the marketing order is approved.

8. State the amount of time an inspector may hold a lot found to be in violation of the marketing order and specify the time period allowed to recondition a product pursuant to section 3-420.

B. The marketing order may apply to more than one commodity and may include any other relevant information.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1979–1985 · leading case: City of Phoenix v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 712 P.2d 966 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Phoenix v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 712 P.2d 966 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “The basis of the fictitious payee rule is explained in UCC § 3-405, Official Comment 4: The principle followed is that the loss should fall upon the employer as a risk of his business enterprise rather than upon the subsequent holder or drawee.”
Cont'l Bank v. Wa-Ho Truck Brokerage, 595 P.2d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “§ 3-405(l)(c)]. This statute provides: “A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 3-405(l)(c): 1 case
Cont'l Bank v. Wa-Ho Truck Brokerage, 595 P.2d 206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “§ 3-405(l)(c)]. This statute provides: “A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.